Group petitions FCC to go after Comcast following data caps controversy

Public Knowledge also alleges that Comcast may be violating Open Internet Order.

The advocacy group Public Knowledge has filed a formal petition with the Federal Communications Commission, arguing that Comcast is in violation of its NBC-Universal merger agreement with the regulatory body.

The move was filed Wednesday, and it comes after months of changes that Comcast has made to its data management policies. In March 2012, the company said that Xfinity TV On Demand video played over an Xbox 360 would not count against a 250GB data cap. In May, the company said it would suspend all caps for the moment, but would trial two versions of a 300GB cap model.

"Public Knowledge requests that the Commission move to enforce the conditions it imposed upon Comcast as part of Comcast’s merger with NBC-Universal," the organization wrote in the petition. "Comcast’s decision to exempt its online video service from its own data caps is precisely the type of behavior contemplated and barred by the Commission in the Merger Order. As such, the Commission must move to end the behavior and prevent it from being repeated in the future."

Also in May 2012, many network analysts, including Vint Cerf himself (the co-inventor of TCP/IP!), raised questions about Comcast’s practices after finding the company was not serving its Xfinity TV service through a “private IP network.”

So why wait until now to file a petition to the FCC?

“We wanted to see if Comcast was going to take any steps to see if they would address this on its own, but they didn’t,” said Michael Weinberg, a vice president at Public Knowledge, in an interview with Ars on Wednesday.

“There’s no suggestion that they’re going to get rid of the caps. This is a pressing issue that has a real-world impact today. This is something that is true today, and we know that Comcast is discriminating against every other video competitor.”

In an e-mail sent to Ars, a Comcast spokesperson said the company had no immediate response.

“We generally don’t comment on every press release or petition put out by Public Knowledge,” wrote Sena Fitzmaurice, adding that the 300GB “test approaches” are underway in Nashville.

Good. The Caps need to go, they're an inefficient way for regulating a network to begin with that have an ADDED benefit of being anti-competitive as well by helping to lock people into their TV product that might be contemplating moving over to streaming only. So yeah, whatever it takes to get these guys into a dumb pipe, I'm in favor of. Especially since they really are directly violating an agreement they entered into willingly as a condition on their proposed merger. The FCC really does need to show that they have the ability to hold Comcast to it, otherwise what's the point of having any regulatory body at all.

not only this, but Comcast is delaying my netflix traffic by noticeable times. Connecting to netflix via my xbox 360 used to take around 5 seconds, now it takes around 25. Starting a video stream used to take around 15 seconds to buffer, now it takes around 60 seconds to buffer.

Comcast is trying everything in their power to play dirty and avoid providing traffic agnostic Internet access.

“We generally don’t comment on every press release or petition put out by Public Knowledge,” wrote Sena Fitzmaurice

As much as I support Public Knowledge, this statement made me chuckle.

Echoing others: Good. Someone needs to call Comcast on this practice -- which is exactly what those who told everyone "We don't need Net Neutrality because the ISPs have not shown any practice that called for it" said wouldn't happen.

When I first heard about data not being counted against the X-box I was a little outraged in regards to net neutrality. However, I since changed my position. The Xfinity app on X-box carries the same content as the OnDemand service through my cable box. This gives me the choice of using either method to receive the exact same content.

If using the Xfinity app on my X-box, or any other device while I am connected to Comcast's network, were to count against my data cap I would be extremely upset. Here is why. As a Comcast subscriber I already pay for the ability to watch content in the OnDemand service. If it counted against my data cap that would be an additional penalty to subscribers to view the exact same content on the same network using an alternate method. This would force me into using Comcast's horrible cable box interface (not that the X-box is that much better). It gives the subscriber the option to choose the method without incurring an additional data penalty.

That being said, data cap-free Xfinity streaming is not the problem. Data prioritization and data caps are the issue. Measures need to be taken to ensure Comcast does not prioritize their data over anyone else's. I can not speak for anyone else but so far, as a Netflix user, I have not experienced this. Again, I only speak from my experience.

And as for data caps we all know that the amount of data downloaded has nothing to do with network congestion. It has everything to do with how many people are downloading/streaming at the same time. Which means Comcast's *fat pipe* isn't fat enough. Build out your infrastructure Comcast to support the demand and you wont have to worry about data caps.

<snip> And as for data caps we all know that the amount of data downloaded has nothing to do with network congestion. It has everything to do with how many people are downloading/streaming at the same time. Which means Comcast's *fat pipe* isn't fat enough. Build out your infrastructure Comcast to support the demand and you wont have to worry about data caps.

In most markets Comcast doesn't have any incentive to build out infrastructure. Here in Chattanooga Tn though, after municipal fiber was offered as an alternative utility, they somehow managed to upgrade their infrastructure, lower their costs, and even (not joking here) had a community "Comcast Cares" outreach for a bit.

Given how they hamstrung my community for so long by not having competition through litigation and monopolistic manipulation, and in doing so not making a best faith effort at improving service or even changing the status quo, I will never ever do business with them again.

In most markets Comcast doesn't have any incentive to build out infrastructure. Here in Chattanooga Tn though, after municipal fiber was offered as an alternative utility, they somehow managed to upgrade their infrastructure, lower their costs, and even (not joking here) had a community "Comcast Cares" outreach for a bit.

Given how they hamstrung my community for so long by not having competition through litigation and monopolistic manipulation, and in doing so not making a best faith effort at improving service or even changing the status quo, I will never ever do business with them again.

Great that you have that choice. Now please stop telling everyone how awesome your muni-fiber is. It's making the rest of us a little envious (and by envious I mean angry).

It would be awesome if you somehow became an evangelist for municipal fiber projects not in Chattanooga, TN, though.

I agree with your point. This is where government, mainly the FCC, needs to grow a backbone and create an environment that promotes fair competition. My only issue with the article is that a lot of people fixate on the X-box streaming issue which isn't really an issue at all.

As for the "Comcast Cares" program, I wouldn't knock it too much. I am very familiar with it and the employees and their families volunteer their time for it. My only gripe with it is that it should be take place more than once a year. Or least give the employees the opportunity to take it further than it is and let it go beyond just a token PR move.

Oh, wonderful. Now I'm going to have to put my career on hold while I go join up for the front lines of the fiber-fight. Seriously, why Nashville? Are they hoping for pro-copyright/content sympathies from the music business contingent? Or are they just really interested in making my life more difficult?

In most markets Comcast doesn't have any incentive to build out infrastructure. Here in Chattanooga Tn though, after municipal fiber was offered as an alternative utility, they somehow managed to upgrade their infrastructure, lower their costs, and even (not joking here) had a community "Comcast Cares" outreach for a bit.

Given how they hamstrung my community for so long by not having competition through litigation and monopolistic manipulation, and in doing so not making a best faith effort at improving service or even changing the status quo, I will never ever do business with them again.

Great that you have that choice. Now please stop telling everyone how awesome your muni-fiber is. It's making the rest of us a little envious (and by envious I mean angry).

It would be awesome if you somehow became an evangelist for municipal fiber projects not in Chattanooga, TN, though.

Sorry, I don't mean to harp on it. I do wish however to help people ask the larger more important question: Why are great swaths of the US locked into monopolies in the first place? I find it quite frustrating that our politicians are so deep in the pockets of corporations. Everyone knows that introducing competition only serves to drive this market, but it seems like at the higher levels of government, the parts really getting lobbied by the corporations, only waffle around the issue wishing that it would go away.

I'm not trying to say "look! Sucks to be you" but instead I'm wanting people to ask why their representatives are not doing what's best for their constituents. It's as if the populace is secondary to businesses here in the US. Muni fiber doesn't have to be the answer, but what we currently have in place for most parts of our country is pure money grab at the expense of consumers, with little or no public policy figures fighting for the better good.

I agree with your point. This is where government, mainly the FCC, needs to grow a backbone and create an environment that promotes fair competition. My only issue with the article is that a lot of people fixate on the X-box streaming issue which isn't really an issue at all.

As for the "Comcast Cares" program, I wouldn't knock it too much. I am very familiar with it and the employees and their families volunteer their time for it. My only gripe with it is that it should be take place more than once a year. Or least give the employees the opportunity to take it further than it is and let it go beyond just a token PR move.

Ha, kinda made me smile a bit. Most people really only quote and don't really bother to say Hi. Myself included. Let me change things up a bit.....

Hi SqueezeToyAliens,

Agreed. I think my reply to JTD121 above reflects what you're saying as well. That said, I'll concede your point on the "Comcast Cares" comment. It was cheap shot taken out of frustration and doesn't properly reflect on the employees in community outreach programs. Apologies for that.

Good point about the monopolies and our reps in government. I think telco/cable companies try to position it as a utility like electricity to get those benefits. However, they are also for profit companies so they can't have it both ways.

No problem about the Comcast Cares thing. It's not a bad idea but I think Comcast does use it as a token effort to some degree when the program could do a lot more.

In most markets Comcast doesn't have any incentive to build out infrastructure. Here in Chattanooga Tn though, after municipal fiber was offered as an alternative utility, they somehow managed to upgrade their infrastructure, lower their costs, and even (not joking here) had a community "Comcast Cares" outreach for a bit.

Given how they hamstrung my community for so long by not having competition through litigation and monopolistic manipulation, and in doing so not making a best faith effort at improving service or even changing the status quo, I will never ever do business with them again.

Great that you have that choice. Now please stop telling everyone how awesome your muni-fiber is. It's making the rest of us a little envious (and by envious I mean angry).

It would be awesome if you somehow became an evangelist for municipal fiber projects not in Chattanooga, TN, though.

+1. I always wonder why is the U.S capitalism and free market theory don't apply to ISP and telecom in U.S. And all the politicians keep promoting it.

In most markets Comcast doesn't have any incentive to build out infrastructure. Here in Chattanooga Tn though, after municipal fiber was offered as an alternative utility, they somehow managed to upgrade their infrastructure, lower their costs, and even (not joking here) had a community "Comcast Cares" outreach for a bit.

Given how they hamstrung my community for so long by not having competition through litigation and monopolistic manipulation, and in doing so not making a best faith effort at improving service or even changing the status quo, I will never ever do business with them again.

Great that you have that choice. Now please stop telling everyone how awesome your muni-fiber is. It's making the rest of us a little envious (and by envious I mean angry).

It would be awesome if you somehow became an evangelist for municipal fiber projects not in Chattanooga, TN, though.

I could be an evangelist for just the opposite. We had (Tacoma, WA) the local utility decide to compete with Comcast a while back (nine or so years) the offer/d cable tv (Just like Comcast!) telephone and internet. Problem is they spent tons of money (my taxes)and created the worse, not competitive at all piece of crap service I have ever run afoul of.

Cable service (with half the channels of the big C) for exactly the same price I was paying, telephone service (only if you get internet, mind you)for exactly the same price and internet for $5 a month less. Oh but wait, the internet service that was promised to be fiber, is just plain old crummy DSL. Oh and even better, they weren't the providers of the internet they had contracted out to local ISPs.

My neighbor swears the service is better than it used to be, but I compare the prices and products and there just isn't any reason to move when the cost is the same now (or more) and I get to trade one bill and one phone number to call for three.

Now, if Google brought their fiber to Tacoma... I'd skip in a heartbeat.

while i agree that prohibition was just as effective as the current "war on drugs" (that is to say - neither are effective), i don't think it's a good comparison to ISPs. might be more accurate to compare ISPs to New Hampshire's state liquor stores. Apparently in NH, there's no such thing as a privately owned liquor store. they're all state-owned, which to me sounds an awful lot like a monopoly. and i find it incredibly ironic that most of the liquor stores i've seen there are also interstate highway rest stops, inconveniently placed far out of the way of most towns. (don't drink and drive, but you have to drive at least 30 minutes, maybe an hour just to get to the liquor store)

i don't drink and i don't live in NH; i only visit occasionally. so i can't say whether NH's liquor is overpriced or if the selection is poor, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that they are.

I could be an evangelist for just the opposite. We had (Tacoma, WA) the local utility decide to compete with Comcast a while back (nine or so years) the offer/d cable tv (Just like Comcast!) telephone and internet. Problem is they spent tons of money (my taxes)and created the worse, not competitive at all piece of crap service I have ever run afoul of.

[/snip]

I think you misunderstand what people are talking about when they bring up municipal fiber. What Tacoma did was stupid. That is not what everyone who refers to municipal fiber is talking about.

Here's how ISPs/TV service works now. Let's take Comcast for instance. Comcast connects their network to your neighborhood by paying to create the infrastructure from their backbone/offices to your neighborhood. They then go further and run cables from your neighborhood hub to each house that needs service. The reason that there is a monopoly is because nobody can use Comcast's infrastructure but Comcast, which makes sense. Comcast turns around and justifies its ridiculous prices by saying "Oh, we need that money to build out our network and to increase our quality of service, blah blah blah." This kills competition, because if Verizon wanted to run a fiber pipe to the Comcast neighborhood, they would have to do exactly what Comcast did.. essentially build their own network in that neighborhood. Since Comcast already has all those customers, it makes little economic sense to try to compete with Comcast on their own turf. The cost of building the network and the return from potential customers is too low a ratio to make sense business-wise. I use Comcast as the example, but this happens vice-versa with Verizon.

The point of municipal fiber isn't to have the municipality/govt provide internet and TV SERVICE, it is simply supposed to be infrastructure. The municipality lays fiber from the nearest backbone to every house under their jurisdiction. Then, Comcast, Verizon, other start ups, etc pay the municipality to be able to use their infrastructure. Let's picture the scenario above. Let's say a municipality runs fiber to that Comcast community. Now, the infrastructure is there for anyone to use. If Verizon wants to come into that neighborhood, now they can without having to build infrastructure. All they need now is to pay the municipality to use their lines. Now, Verizon can offer service for a fraction of the price because they don't have to build the network. Verizon lowers prices, then Comcast does to compete, then massive price war ensues. Consumer wins, with record low prices on the same service.

This is likely to happen in the VERY distant future, if it happens at all. The status quo is Verizon and Comcast saying they need the high prices because they pay for infrastructure. If infrastructure is already there, then they have to compete fairly and offer attractive prices instead of relying on being the only game in town. Obviously, Comcast and Verizon are fighting tooth and nail to prevent this, with lobbyists and palm greasing galore.

not only this, but Comcast is delaying my netflix traffic by noticeable times. Connecting to netflix via my xbox 360 used to take around 5 seconds, now it takes around 25. Starting a video stream used to take around 15 seconds to buffer, now it takes around 60 seconds to buffer.

Comcast is trying everything in their power to play dirty and avoid providing traffic agnostic Internet access.

It's directly against net neutrality.

Please feel free to call and complain to Comcast about this. I know they generally have the worst customer service you can imagine--not so much that they're rude or nasty, but more that it often seems as if nobody you're talking to has a clue (and they screw it up behind the scenes when they send out the wrong service person who*really* doesn't know what's going on--but if you speak forcefully enough and knowledgeably enough about your problem, and often enough to enough people, you can eventually find the right person to help you and get some movement/improvement.

I speak from experience. It took me several weeks, but I did get several thorny problems ironed out with Comcast and had some nice conversations with some nice, well-meaning people who really wanted to do a better job than what the company was allowing them to do. I think Comcast's turnover is so high, they don't bother teaching or training anybody as it's an investment that won't pay for itself, but there is someone there who will get it. It's often just a matter of finding them.

When I first heard about data not being counted against the X-box I was a little outraged in regards to net neutrality. However, I since changed my position. The Xfinity app on X-box carries the same content as the OnDemand service through my cable box. This gives me the choice of using either method to receive the exact same content.

If using the Xfinity app on my X-box, or any other device while I am connected to Comcast's network, were to count against my data cap I would be extremely upset. Here is why. As a Comcast subscriber I already pay for the ability to watch content in the OnDemand service. If it counted against my data cap that would be an additional penalty to subscribers to view the exact same content on the same network using an alternate method. This would force me into using Comcast's horrible cable box interface (not that the X-box is that much better). It gives the subscriber the option to choose the method without incurring an additional data penalty.

That being said, data cap-free Xfinity streaming is not the problem. Data prioritization and data caps are the issue. Measures need to be taken to ensure Comcast does not prioritize their data over anyone else's. I can not speak for anyone else but so far, as a Netflix user, I have not experienced this. Again, I only speak from my experience.

And as for data caps we all know that the amount of data downloaded has nothing to do with network congestion. It has everything to do with how many people are downloading/streaming at the same time. Which means Comcast's *fat pipe* isn't fat enough. Build out your infrastructure Comcast to support the demand and you wont have to worry about data caps.

That's exactly the point. If Comcast is going to institute data caps, in total absence of any reasonable data anywhere that shows they are necessary, then they need to swallow their own medicine.

There should not be data caps. The only reasoning anyone has ever offered is traffic management in response to network congestion, but packet agnostic bandwidth throttling would offer as good or better performance. The only difference is that throttling doesn't have the added benefit of providing a huge advantage to Comcast's own services over their competitors.

same on my end.. when I first read the story awhile ago about getting rid of caps. I checked every week.. it was still there "250GB cap". Not hard to pull the plug on that system, the same way it appeared when they announced it.

I foresee a significantly smaller fine than what Verizon suffered for violating the conditions associated with the C Block Spectrum it leases! These companies are gouging billions on these antitrust deals the FCC (and to a lesser extent, FTC) allowing to go through! Fine them an amount that fits the crime and reverse the deals!

while i agree that prohibition was just as effective as the current "war on drugs" (that is to say - neither are effective), i don't think it's a good comparison to ISPs. might be more accurate to compare ISPs to New Hampshire's state liquor stores. Apparently in NH, there's no such thing as a privately owned liquor store. they're all state-owned, which to me sounds an awful lot like a monopoly. and i find it incredibly ironic that most of the liquor stores i've seen there are also interstate highway rest stops, inconveniently placed far out of the way of most towns. (don't drink and drive, but you have to drive at least 30 minutes, maybe an hour just to get to the liquor store)

i don't drink and i don't live in NH; i only visit occasionally. so i can't say whether NH's liquor is overpriced or if the selection is poor, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that they are.

I see what you're saying, but I wasn't making a comparison to anything. I was just naming the only widespread truly free market I am aware of in the US. It is used to illustrate simple supply and demand in economics classes. There is a complete absence of monopoly as anyone can take part as a buyer or seller and make a profit or consume a resource, theoretically anyway. If a comparison was to be made, ISPs would be the mafia, and attempting to compete in a family's territory would get you fitted for cement shoes. The factions pay off the feds, collaborate to price-fix, and bleed their customers dry asap, taking the short-sighted payoff every time.